Many people believe that political debate is necessary for informing the public and encouraging healthy discussion of policy issues. Unfortunately, the current format of political debate carries significant risks for democracy. The current format of debates tends to be dominated by the moderator, who is chosen based on pre-established objective criteria and often has as little contact with the candidates as desired. This can result in questions that advance the news agenda or promote particular perspectives, despite their ostensible goal of improving public understanding of the candidates’ plans and positions on the issues. It can also reduce the level of spontaneity in the debate, and create an interview or Sunday show dynamic that encourages candidates to focus on the moderator rather than their opponents.
How the Candidates Are Chosen for Debates
To participate in a presidential debate, candidates must meet certain requirements. To qualify, a candidate must be on enough state ballots to win the electoral vote and must have a statistically feasible chance of doing so. To prepare for the debate, campaigns must spend resources promoting their message and developing strategy. Debate facilities are constructed or retrofitted to accommodate a large audience, media and campaign staff work spaces, spin alleys, and transportation systems for Secret Service motorcades and thousands of surrogates and supporters traveling to the venue.
In addition to determining who is eligible to participate, the organization staging the debate must establish objective criteria for selecting the moderator and a process for ensuring that the questions are consistent with those identified by polls as important issues. The Working Group believes that if the organizations presenting the debates do not have a clear understanding of how to balance these interests, there is risk that debates may become more focused on the process of determining who will run for office and less on the issues that voters find most interesting and informative.